Virginia Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Cabinet Saver LLC, No. 5:2018cv00119 - Document 29 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 4/11/2019. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ctEnrs OFFICE u. S.DISQ COURT AT RG NOKE,VA IN TH E U N ITE D STATE S D ISTM CT COU RT FO R TH E W ESTE RN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA H ARRISO N BU RG D IV ISION FILED APR 1122î9 JULIA C,DUDLEM DY: W RGIN IA IN DU STRIM ., PIA ST ICS,IN C., E' RK R Plaintiffy CivilAction N o.5:18-cv-00119 V. CA BIN ET SAVE R LLC, D efendant. By: M ichaelF.U rbansld ClliefU.S.DistrictJudge M E M O RAN D U M O PIN IO N Tllism attercom esbeforethe courton plninéffVitginia IndustrialPlastics,lnc.'s (V1P)moéonfotjudgmentonthepleadings,flledonMarch 14,2019.ECFNo.25. DefendantCabinetSaverLLC (CabinetSaver)respondedon March 28,2019.ECF Nù.27. W P replied on April5,2019.ECF N o.28.Forthefollowing reasons,V IP'sm otion is D EN IED . 1. V1P ftled itscom pllintagainstCabinetSaveron Septem ber12,2018.ECF N o.1. Tlaissuitarisesfrom the use ofthe nom e TfcabinetSavers,''used by 130th parùesto zeferto plasdc linersdesigned to protectkitchen sink cabinetsand othersurfacesfrom water Virginia Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Cabinet Saver LLC Doc. 29 dam age.ECF N o.1,at5;ECF N o.7,at2.80th partiesm anufacture productsoftlais description.ECF N o.1,at5;ECF N o.7,at2.V1P ownsU nited StatesTradem ark Registration No.5,426,605fortheuseoftheffcabinetSaver''mark (theMatkl,ftledwith the United StatesPatentandTrademark Office(USPTO)onJuly14,2017.ECF No.1,at29 Dockets.Justia.com ECF N o.7,at1.In itscomplaint,V1P allegesttademarkinfringement,falseassociation/false endorsement,falsedesignation ofsoutceand/ororigin,and unfaircompedtion against CabinetSaver.ECF N o.1. In itsAnsw er,CabinetSaverasserted two counterclnim s,atthebase ofwhich wasan allegaéon thatV IP com m itted fraud in the procurem entofitstradem ark zegistration.ECF N o.7,at4-5.V1P m oved to dismissthesecounterclqim son N ovem ber19,2018.ECF N o. 15.Thecotzrtgtanted thism otion on D ecem ber11,2018.ECF N o.20.V1P now m ovesfor judgmenton thepleadings,atguing'thatCabinetSaver'sTfentirebasisforclniming IVIPqlacks legalrightsto theM ark isbased on the erroneouspzenaisethatV 1P'srightsto the M atk are invalid due to fraudulentconduct,''and thatthe cotut'sdism issalofthiscountetclnim elim inatesanyissueofm aterialfact.ECF N o.26,at3-4. II. Rule 12(c)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedureallowsapartyto movefor judgmentonthepleadings'fgaqftertlw pleadingsateclosed.''<<A motionforjudgmenton thepleadingspursuanttoRule12(c)isanalyzed underthesamestandard asaFederalRule ofCivilProcedure12$)(6)motiontodisrniss.''Mendenhallv.Hanesbrands-lnc.,856.F. Supp.2d717,723(M .D.N.C.2012)(cidngBurbachBroad.Co.ofDel.v.ElkinsRadio Cp-rp.,278F.3d 401,405-06 (4th Ciz.2002)). Therefore,amoùon forjudgmenton thepleadingsT'should only be granted if,after accepting allwell-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's com plaint as ttue and drawing al1teasonable factazal inferences from those facts in the plainéff's favor,it appeats ceztain thattheplaintiffcannotprove any setoffactsin support oflaiscbim entitling 1,1% to zelief.'i 2 Dra ezv.PLIVA USA.Inc.,741F.3d470,474(4thCir.2014)(quotingEdwardsv.Cityof Goldsboro,178F.3d231,244 (4th Cit.1999)).SeeBookerv.Peterson Cos.,412Fed.App'x. 615,616(4thCir.2011)(<flnordertosutviveamodonforjulgmenton thepleadings,the com pbintm ustcontain sufficientfacts<to raise arightto reliefabove thespeculativelevel' andfstateaclaim toteliefthatisplausibleonitsface.'''(quodngBellAtl.Co .v.Twombl, 550U.S.544,555(2007)). But,modonstodisrnissandmodonsforjudgmentonthepleadingsarenotidentkal: TftguqnlikeonaRule129$(6)motion ...onaRule12(c)modonthegq ourtmayconsiderthe Answeraswel1.'''M endenhall,856F.Supp.2dat724(bracketsandellipsisitloriginal) (quoéngAlexanderv.Ci ofGreensboro,No.1:09-CV-293,2011W L 3360644,at*2 (M .D.N.C.Aug.3,2011)).'VheTfactualallegationsin the (A nsweratetaken asttazeto the extenttheyhavenotbeendeniedordonotconflictwiththegq omplaint.'''J. dz.(bracketsin original)(quotingFarmerv.W ilsonHous.Auth.,393F.Supp.2d384,386(E.D.N.C. 2004)).Moreover,ffgiqn Tdeternniningamodon forjudgmentonthepleaclings,thegq ourt mayconsiderdocumentsincorpozatedbyzeferenceinto thepleadings.'''Id.(secondbzackets irzoriginal)(quotingPbf-mer,393F.Supp.2d at386).However,Tflijf,on amoéon for judgmenton thepleadings,mattersoutsidethepleadingsarepresentedtoand notexcluded bythecourt,themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentandclisposedofas provided in Rule 56.77A.S.AbellCo.v.Baltim oteT o ra llicalUnion N o.12,338 F.2d 190,193 (4th Cir.1964)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P.12(c)).Thedecision toexcludematters outside the pleadingsisffdiscreéonaryw1t. 11the court.'?Id. Shouldthecourtconsidermattersoutsidethepleadings,themotion fozjudgmenton thepleadingsmaybetreated asamoéon forsummaryjudgment.Pursuantto FederalRule ofCivilProceduze56(a),thecourtmustffgrantslpmmalyjudgmentifthemovantshowsthat thereisnogentzinedisputeastoanymaterialfactandthemovantisentitledtojudgmentas amatteroflaw.''Fed.R.Civ.P.56(a);CelotexCo .v.Catrett,477U.S.317,322 (1986)9Glnnv.EDO Co .,710F.3d209,213(4thCit.2013).W henmakingthis deterrnination,thecourtshotûd considerTrthe pleadings,depositions,answersto interzogatories,andadmissionson fûe,togetherwith ...(anyjaffidavits''fzed bythe pnrl ies.Celotex,477 U .S.at322.W hethera factism aterialdependson therelevant substantivelaw.Andersonv.LibertyLobby,Inc.,477U.S.242,248(1986).Tr nlydisputes overfactsthatnnightaffectthe outcom e ofthe sttitunderthegoverning 1aw will' properly precludetheentryofsllmmaryjudgment.Factualdisputesthatareitrelevantotunnecessary willnotbecounted.''ld.(citadon omitted).Themovingpartybearstheiniéalburden of dem onstrating theabsence ofagenuineissue ofm aterialfact.Celotex,477 U.S.at323.If thatburden hasbeen m et,the non-m oving patty mustthen com e forward and establish the specificmaterialfactsindisputetosurvivesummatyjudgment.M atsushtaElec.Indus.Co. v.ZenithRadioCo .,475U.S.574,586-87(1986). In deteM ining whetheragenlzineissue ofm aterialfactexists,the cokutview sthe factsand draw sallreasonableinferencesin the lightm ostfavorable to the non-m oving party.Glnn,710F.3dat213 (citingBondsv.Leavitt,629F.3d 369,380 (4th Cir.2011)). lndeed,Tfgijtisan. faxiom thatin rllling on amotion forsummaryjudgment,theevidenceof thenonmovantistobebelieved,and alljustifiableinferencesaretobedrawnin l' lis 4 favot.'7:M cAitlaids Inc.v.Kim berl -clatk Co .,N o.13-2044,2014 W L 2871492,at*1 (4thCir.June25,2014)(internalaltetationonnitted)(citingTolanv.Cotton,572U.S.650, 651(2014)(percutiaml).Moreover,Tfgcltedibilitydeterminaéons,theweigllingofthe evidence,andthedrawingoflegitimateinfetencesfrom thefactsarejuryftmcdons,not thoseofa ) 'udge....''Anderson,477 U .S.at255.H owever,thenon-m oving party Tfm ustset forth specifk factsthatgo beyond the Tm ere existence ofa scintillaofevidence,'''G lnn,710 F.3dat213(quodngAnderson,477U.S.at252),andshow thatffthereissufficientevidence favoringthenonmovingpartyforajurytoretatnaverdictforthatparty.''Res.Bankshares Co .v.St.PaulMerc Ins.Co.,407F.3d631,635(4thCir.2005)(quotingAnderson,477 U.S.at249).Tfln otherwords,to grantsummaryjudgmentthegcjouttmustdete= inethat no teasonablejurycould findforthenonmovingpartyon theevidencebeforeit.''Mossv. ParksCo .,985F.2d736,738(4thCir.1993)(citingPedniCo .v.PeriniConst.lnc.,915 F.2d121,124(4thCit.1990)). 111. A plaintiffbringing aclaim oftradem ark infringem entclnim orfalse designation of originalmark,likeVIP,mustshow that:(1)itpossessesamark;(2)theopposingpartyused thatmark;(3)theopposingpatty'suseofthemarkoccurredincommetce;(4)theopposing partyused them ark in connection wit. h the sale,offering fots' ale, distdbution,or adverdsementofgoodsorservices;and (5)theopposingpartyused themarkitaawaylikely to confuseconsllmers.Lam arellov.Falwell,420F.3d 309,313 (4th Cir.2005).VIP argues thatCabinetSaverhasconceded thatitusesthe M ark in com m erce and in connecéon wit.h the sale ofitscabinetliners.ECF N o.26,at6.Italso atguesthatitsregistered m ark,the 5 tradem atk registtadon ofwlzich isattached to the Com plaint,ispresum ed valid and hasgone unchallenged by CabinetSaverexceptthrough theallegation offraud orinequitable conduct. Ld.sat6-7.SeeECF N o.1-2.Finally,W P goesthzough thenon-exclusivefactorsexamined by courtsin detetmining alikelihood ofconfusion and atguesthateach factorpointswithout question to theconclusion thatCabinetSaverisusing them ark in aw ay thatcauses consum erconfusion.ECF N o.26,at7-9.See SaraLee Co .v.K a ser-lkotherCor .,81 F.3d455,463-64(4t.hCir.1996). CabinetSaverrespondsthatVIP'sm otion isuntim ely,prem atare,and misconstrues Rule12(c).ECF No.27,at2.CabinetSaverexpoundsthat,whileitscounterclnimshave been disrnissed,ithas130th denied V1P'ssubstanéve allegationsand assetted anum berof affitmativedefensesinitsAnswer,130thofwhichbazjudgmentatthisstageofproceeclings. Ld.aat3-4.Finally,CabinetSavetatguesthatVIP'sregistration ofthem arkgivesriseonlyto , azebuttablepresum ption ofitsvalidity,and thatVIP isattem pting to citctmw entitsbutden to show likelihood ofconfusion through thismodon.1daat6. W ithoutconducting any inquiryinto the likelihood ofconfusion by CabinetSaver's use oftheM ark,orany otherelem entofVIP'sttadem ark infringem entclnim ,the court findsthatthism attetcannotberesolved purely upon the pleadingspzesently flled.V1P's assertion thatdiscoveryw ould do nothing to <frefm e the factsasthey stand''failsto addtess thenum erousfacm alallegationsin thecom plaintthatwere denied by CabinetSaver.ECF N o.25,at1.ln response to V IP'sflrstclnim oftradem ark inflingem ent,CabinetSaverhas m ademany factazaldenials,includingrejectingtheasserdonsthatitsuseoftheM atkislikely to cause confusion,thatthisuse hascaused confusion,and thatactazalcustom ershave indicated confusion.ECF N o.7,at3.The denialofthese factualasserdonsbarsthe court from gzantingjudgmenttoVIP ptuelyupon thepleadings.SeeInreMabbott,255B.R.787, 789rfBecausetheCouttmustgivethenonmovant'sassertionssubstantialdeference,a defendantneedonlyusethewordfdeny'ingoodfahhtoavoidjudgmentonthepleaclings on inadequatezesponsegzounds.7). Beyondthis,CabinetSaverhasasserted anumberofafùtvnaévedefenses.ECF No. 7,at4.A sVIP pointsout,the fifth such defense,thatW P'scbim sarebatred becauseVlP obtained itsTradem ark Registtation thtough fraud,hasbeen disnnissed by the cotlrt.ECF No.20.CabinetSavezassertsfourotheraffit-mativedefenses,howevet:(1)thatVlP has ff unclean hands'';(2)thatVIP'sclnimsarebarredbythedoctrineoflaches;(3)thatVIP has acquiesced to CabinetSaver'suseoftheMark;and (4)thatVlP isthejuniorusezofthe Markandisattempéngtohjackitfzom CabinetSaver.ECFNo.7,at4.VIP hasnotmoved to strikethesedefenses.ffgijfthedefendantraisesan afflzmativedefensein hisanswer,itwill usuallybarjudgmentonthepleadings.'?Butnsv.ConsolidatedAmusementCo.,182F.R.D. 609,612 (13.Haw.1998). W hile VIP pointsouttlzatthe cotzrthasdisnzissed CabinetSaver'scounterclnim and arguesthattlniselirninatesany defenseto itsalleged tradem ark infringem ent,the court's disrnissalofthe countezclnim wasbased putely upon CabinetSaver'sassertion thatV1P ffobtainedafederaltradem arkregisttation fraudulentlyin thatVIP'sgsicjfraudulentlyalleged adateofflrstuseoftheM ark alm ostten yeazspriorto itsacm alftrstuse ofthe M ark,and forthe sole purpose ofinfringing on CabinetSaver'sttadem ark rights.''ECF N o.7,at5.A s the cotutrlaled then and reiteratesnow,an erroneousdate of& stuse cannotbe thegrounds foza fzaud in the procutem entclnim .See e. .,Pon Ex .CoutierCot .ofAm .v.Pon Ex .Delive SetN.,872F.2d317,319(9th Cir.1989)(ffl' hecloim ofadateoffltstuseis notamaterialallegadon aslongastheftrstusein factprecededtheapplicaéon date.');Lewis v.MicrosoftCo .,410F.Supp.2d432,437-38(E.D.N.C.2006),affd,222 F.App'x290 (4thCir.2007)(fndingtradematkinfzingementchimswetebazzedbyzesjudicataaftezthe Ttadem ark Boazd held thatan incotrectdateofftrstusewasnotm aterialand did not conséttztefraud);Geor ia-southern 011lnc.v.Harve m chardson,16U.S.P.Q.Zd 1723 (T.T.A.B.July19.,1990)(TfThus,thedateoffttstuseallegedbyapplicantinitsapplicadon, eveniffalse,cannotbesaidto consdtutefraud on theoffce.').Thecourt'sdisrnissalof CabinetSaver'scountercl/im doesweigh upon itsfifth affitm ative defense,thatVIP'scl/im s arebarred becauseVIP TTobtained itsTzadem ark Registration through fraud,''ECF N o.7,at 4,butdoesnotelim inate CabinetSaver'sotheraffit-mative defenses. VIP assertsthatCabinetSavethasfailed to provideitsaffltm adve defenseswith any facttzalsupport,and assuch,the cotutm ayignoze them .ECF N o.28,at1.SeeCook v. Howard,484Fed.App'x.805,811(4thCir.2012)rfFacttzalallegationsthataresimplyflabels and conclusions,and a form ulaictecitadon oftheelem entsofa causeofaction'arenot sufficient.''(internalcitationsomittedl).CabinetSaverhas,however,alleged thatVIP knew ofCabinetSaver'suseoftheMarkandadopteditinanattempttoffltijack''theMarkand f<cause confusion,''and thatCabinetSaverffhasbeen and continuesto be hnt-med''by this conduct.ECF N o.7,at4.These facts,wlûle insufhcientto supportan asseréon offraud in theprocurem entoare suffkientto supportanotherofCabinetSaver'safistvnadvedefensesthatofunclean hands.SeePediam ed Pharm aceuticals,Inc.v.BreckenridgePharm aceuécal, 8 Inc.,419F.Supp.2d715,727(D.Md.2006)(describingthedefenseofuncleanhands, stating thattlne docttine ffclosesthedoorsofacourtofequityto onetainted with inequitablenessorbad faith relativeto the m atterin which he seeksrelief,howeverim proper m ay have been thebehaviorofthe defendant,''and furtherrequiring thatapartyinvoking thedoctrineofuncleanhandsshow theywereinjutedbytheotherpartfsconduct).W ithat leastone ofthe CabinetSavet'saffttm adve defensesnlinim ally suppotted,the couttcannot grantamoéonforjudgmentonthepleaclings. IV. Forthereasonsexplainedabove,thecotutDEN IESVlP'smotion forjudgmenton the pleadings.W ith no cliscoverycurrently beforethecourt,the m otion cannotbeconvetted toamotionfors'AmmaryjudgmentandconsideredunderRule56. An appropriate Orderwillbe entered. Entered: o q -/t- z.o /T /w/ - '' H cha /.. .Urbansld U ' d StatesDistrictludge 9 .'
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
